discuss: LDP can't get non-profit status without incorporating
Subject:
Re: [discuss] LDP can't get non-profit status without incorporating
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
18 Apr 2007 00:23:43 -0000
Message-Id: <20070418002338.GI21603@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
> There are still a couple of options: 1. Incorporate or 2. Get an EIN
> no. to open an investment account and to perhaps: get members exempted
> from liability??
To the best of my current understanding, the latter simply doesn't work.
(You keep saying it's possible. If you can find some citations, I'd be
glad to discuss particulars.)
> Perhaps Rick Moen has some ideas about this. If someone were to sue
> LDP and we had only an EIN with a California address, would the venue
> be California? Or would it be N. Carolina where our main website is
> located? This is important since I've been led to believe that the
> California laws limiting lawsuits against members of unincorporated
> nonprofits is more than just trivial. And of couse another question
> is "just who is a member ?".
I'll do my best to answer your question, but please note:
I'm not an attorney. This has a couple of consequences. 1. I might or
might not have an adequate understanding of the relevant law, but you
have no assurance of that. The conventional way to get that assurance
is to seek legal advice from an attorney who's accredited to the Bar in
your jurisdiction -- which, of course, costs money. 2. Like all
non-lawyers (and also lawyers who are not accredited in a particular
jurisdiction), I'm prohibited from giving out "legal advice", a term of
art that basically means advice on matters assigned by statute to
attorneys, concerning an actual specific situation, given to one or more
of the people involved. (Your hypothetical is thus not something where
I risk giving "legal advice", whereas if someone were suing, it might
be.)
Anyway:
In practice, people often have a choice of venue, when they file
litigation. Plaintiff must have a defensible reason why he/she claims
the chosen venue is appropriate, or else risk having the case moved
(change of venue motion) or the suit dismissed. Defensible reasons
might include some showing that the alleged tort (civil wrong)
substantively occurred at a particular location, for example. So, a New
York State resident might claim in his complaint filed in Albany that
he/she was wronged _in_ New York State, by a defendant in California.
By contrast, a plaintiff who is resident in California filing a suit
against a fellow Californian would normally be constrained to litigation
in a local court.
It's not a settled question of law where a tort committed via a Web site
occurs, if that's what you're asking.
